Many Meyer grants aided Oregonians in times of recession with food, utilities and housing. Other grants built important institutions in our state: health clinics, community centers, libraries and museums. Much of our past grantmaking was good and essential.
Then why shift?
Because our state has changed. Our challenges are bigger, more serious and more difficult to address. Oregon has grown from 3 million in just 12 years to 4 million citizens today. Twenty-two percent of our residents are people of color. Portland has the 3rd highest rate among major cities of unsheltered chronically homeless and we are 46th among states for our graduation rate. Our past method of grantmaking was not addressing these trends head-on.
What is Meyer changing?
We are no longer a purely responsive foundation waiting for nonprofit organizations to request funding. We are now very focused on meeting our state's most serious challenges. We have increased our staff and hired experts who have spent months listening to our community to learn what is needed and what approach is best. We hope to bring together talented leaders and nonprofit organizations within our state to address our issues in a comprehensive fashion, leveraging private, nonprofit and government funds. We have learned that focus is incredibly important. We have done this before with the Affordable Housing and Willamette River initiatives. Both have shown some positive measurable results. We believe it can work in other areas. And we are so committed that we are spending a greater portion of Meyer funds than has ever been allocated before.
We will review all programs with an equitable lens. Our demographics have changed remarkably and all of Oregon can not flourish unless all residents are included. We are learning with all of you how to accomplish this.
How is Meyer the same?
We are still concerned about the same issues (issues that surveys indicate Oregonians care most about): affordable housing, good schools, a healthy environment and strengthening our leaders and nonprofit organizations to be better equipped to changing conditions.
We remain totally committed to our nonprofit partners. They have helped set our direction and will be key in moving us toward it.
We still believe Oregon's problems can be solved.
The strength of this new approach depends upon our respectful partnership with nonprofit organizations and our acceptance of all residents. If we are all pulling together, we remain optimistic that Oregon can meet our challenges and that we can make it better place for all of us. We look forward to starting this process with you.
—DC
Debbie Craig stepped down from Meyer’s Board of Trustees in 2019, after serving 23 years.
Today I am excited to announce that Meyer Memorial Trust is launching our new funding opportunities.
Over the past 12 months, we paid out nearly $38 million in grants and program related investments. At the same time, we completely overhauled our grantmaking to be more strategic, to have greater impact and to focus on what we believe is the greatest impediment to achieving an Oregon where all people can reach their full potential: Inequities.
The reasoning underlying our focus on equity is straightforward: inequity is a pernicious obstacle to the flourishing and equitable state Oregonians deserve.
Previously at Meyer, we had two main funding portals: Responsive Grants, aimed at larger projects and often larger organizations, and Grassroots Grants, which focused on smaller projects and emerging nonprofits. In addition, in recent years, we began funding three initiatives, one focused on the Willamette River, another focused on affordable housing and a third, in partnership with other local funders, the Chalkboard Project, focused on education. While the initiatives were targeted, most of Meyer’s funding went to assorted requests made through our responsive grants programs.
But our experience with the initiatives was eye-opening and instructive. Where we were unable to measure impact over time from our Responsive and Grassroots grantmaking, we were able to track it via our initiatives. Impact matters, particularly in Oregon, which has relatively few place-based foundations compared to other areas of the country. Although $38 million in grantmaking sounds like a lot of money, only when it is targeted can it help move the needle to make life measurably better in communities across the state.
Within our new focused portfolios — Building Community, Healthy Environment, Housing Opportunities and Equitable Education — we will prioritize work that increases equity for and inclusion of Oregonians who experience disparities because of race, ethnicity, income, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other oppressions. While we will still support some organizations that do not have equity as a primary focus, we are asking all our partners to explore equity within the context of their organizations. And we will challenge and support them to make progress on integrating diversity, equity and inclusion in their work, partnerships, outreach, policies, staff and boards.
One consequence of our new strategy and pursuit of deeper impact is that we will have to make difficult choices. Where in the past we assessed proposals based on their individual merits, we will now strive to identify the strongest opportunities to make progress toward our specific goals with partners who share our commitment to furthering equity. With our focus on building community, supporting a healthy environment, ensuring housing opportunities and achieving equitable education for all Oregonians, we recognize that there will be work and outstanding nonprofits that we have funded in the past that will not strongly align with our new direction and will be unlikely to receive grants going forward.
You’ll find details of our Spring 2016 Funding Opportunities, for which we will begin accepting Inquiry Applications on Monday, April 4th. Additional funding opportunities to support the sector and in the Equitable Education portfolio will be announced later this year and there will also likely be strategy-specific opportunities through our Affordable Housing and/or Willamette River initiatives. All told we anticipate paying out in the range of $36 million this year, including awards made under the Spring 2016 Funding Opportunities, existing and multi-year awards, initiative funding and other opportunities that may present as we get deeper into the new program work.
Before I let you go, a reminder: these shifts in our grantmaking are just part of the ongoing strategic changes you’ll notice at Meyer. We heard your calls for Meyer to take a more active role to convene and leverage our influence. Going forward, we will be an engaged partner in the shared work of making Oregon a more equitable place.
We enter this new era for Meyer committed and energized around the values that drive and shape our work: equity, transparency, responsiveness, innovation, collaboration and humbleness. So as we continue on this journey, we will evaluate our funding portfolios and encourage your candid and constructive feedback. Together we can strive for the greatest possible impact in Oregon. I’ve said it before, we know the road ahead will present some unanticipated challenges and we don’t have all the answers. We’re going to remain transparent about our progress as we move forward. Your input is key.
For now, I invite you to explore our website for details of Meyer’s portfolios, the latest funding opportunities and our updated Frequently Asked Questions about the changes. And be sure to check out Trustee Debbie Craig’s post about why Meyer is changing here.
So you've probably heard about the illustration contest Meyer and Northwest Health Foundation launched in February 2016, to help identify images from Oregon artists that further the discourse on equity.
We were drawn to the illustrations floating around the web, usually depicting three individuals standing on boxes outside a fence. Often the images were used to show the difference between equality, where everyone gets the same resources, and equity, which speaks to each person getting the resources they need.
Our contest ends March 31st, and while we've gotten some really interesting submissions from youths and adults, we're excited about what more may come our way.
Recently, we came across a LinkedIn post by Aasha M. Abdill, an independent evaluation and strategy consultant based in Washington, D.C., taking on the ubiquitous image of those three figures on boxes stacked outside a fence. She had a fresh perspective about how the popular image gets equity so very, very wrong.
With her permission, we share Aasha's post:
I have seen this picture floating around many times on LinkedIn for several months now.
While I very much appreciated the intended purpose of the image-- distinguishing equity from equality-- the first time I saw it, I could not click the "like" button. Something about the image bugged me. Yet, I couldn't easily figure out why and I didn't have any free time to think on it. After a while I stopped seeing it in my feed and I forgot about it.
A couple of months later, a slightly different version resurfaced. It appeared consistently and boldly in my feed with little concern for my escalating irritation. As each LinkedIn colleague liked, shared and commented in its favor, I felt an irrational exasperation. I am not easily vexed so this was a clear problem that I knew I needed to address.
I stared at the image. It "stared" back at me. I frowned. I sighed. I furrowed my brow. I walked away. And, then it hit me. My voice in my head screamed with a mixture of indignation and relief, "That's why I can't stand you!"
Do you know why? If you don't, it's understandable because it exemplifies the insidiousness of implicit bias. So, I will not keep you entrapped for a second longer. Instead, I will ask you one question.
In the picture, why are the three individuals so observably different in capability (physical height and age)?
Social equity is imperative because structural inequality exists; that is, you can predict the outcomes of individuals based on social characteristics that should not have any direct correlation to the outcome. Why then, is it possible to predict? Because, social inequality is perpetuated by institutional and individual discrimination. So, to address social inequities, the boxes appearing in the second frame are necessarily doled out unequally so that equity can be achieved.
The problem with the picture is in its implicit bias that many do not see. If we believe, fundamentally, that all people regardless of race, class or creed are comparably able, there should be little difference between the individuals in this picture. What should be drawn as dissimilar are not the individuals but rather the bottom boxes they are standing on in the first frame.
While I fully appreciate the intended purpose of the image, its point regrettably rests upon a deeply ingrained belief of the inherent inequality of people. And, despite the sincere explicit intention for increasing understanding, empathy, and justice for redressing social inequities, the picture's sentiment implicitly reinforces the idea that minorities (or those otherwise unprivileged) have inferior abilities.
So, for all you artists — please! Please create another picture. One that conveys the important distinction of equity and equality without the hidden and deeply ingrained bigotry.
On that note, please submit your own entry into the EquityIllustrated design contest. Help us get this right.
And read the rest of Aasha's conversation-provoking post on LinkedIn here.
As philanthropy has begun to shift the conversation from equality towards equity, we've seen (and experienced at Meyer) the challenges of accurately conveying the complex goals of equity in a way that is simple and easily understandable.
Equality is focused on giving all people the same things. By providing the same input, equality expects similar outputs. While equality can work well in binary situations, the concept has proven to be unsuccessful in more complex settings.
Take Meyer’s office plants, for example. All of our plants receive the same amount of sunlight, water and attention. But most remain stagnant and a couple have actually begun to wilt. When I think about botanical diversity, these outcomes are more than just plausible, they’re expected. The solution to our wilting problem isn’t new plants, its plant equity.
Which seems pretty simple right? You don’t give a diverse group of plants the same thing, you give each plant the proper care and resources it needs in order to reach its full potential. If we treated our plants equitably, they’d all have the chance to thrive.
People are more complicated than plants. To reach their full potential, people need systemic barriers that stand in their way to be removed.
Even in the foundation world, where people like myself are actively engaged in equity work, it can be a difficult concept to articulate. Graphics like this commonly shared one have been immensely helpful at moving the conversation forward, by providing an image that can be easily interpreted by a broad audience.
In this recent blog post on LinkedIn, Aasha M. Abdill does a marvelous job of addressing that baseball game graphic, and its insidious, implicit bias. Her critique is one reason we sponsored Equity Illustrated, to help develop a better visual tool to help lead us to greater clarity and consensus around equity and how it differs from equality. Often, the simplest images can help convey the most complex idea.
Just last year this simple animated video, inspired by this article, compared sexual consent with drinking tea. As complex as consent can be, after watching the short video, consent becomes as straightforward as drinking a cup of tea.
We’re hoping for similar results illustrating equity so that all Oregonians can understand this critical concept.
So, can you help us illustrate why equity is just as simple as tea? Ten days remain in our contest. Pick your medium and grab your supplies and enter by midnight, Thursday, March 31st.
While I am a self-acknowledged evangelist, I recognize that “equity” is radical thinking in some circles. But for me, and at Meyer, equity has become the driving force in how we approach our work.
The underlying premise begins with the acknowledgment that resources applied equally across the board do not solve deep problems. To meaningfully address the persistent gaps/disparities we witness in Oregon, we need to implement strategies rooted in equity that are not necessarily equal.
Equity is at the forefront of our daily news: you see it every time you read about race, profiling, education-wage-housing gaps, gender rights and disparities, power or privilege, immigration and protectionism. And the list goes on.
Eliminating these inequities has become one of the most pressing and critical issues of our time. I don’t think that’s hyperbole. What we strive for at Meyer, in service to our vision of a “flourishing and equitable Oregon,” is to eliminate barriers that keep ALL Oregonians from reaching their full potential.
This year marks my 18th in the independent sector — 14 years at Meyer and four at the nonprofit Friends of the Children. Before that I was at NIKE in global public affairs and corporate philanthropy.
To sum up my professional endeavors over the past 20 plus years, I’ve been working to solve social problems. It became acutely apparent to me during the past five years that my efforts, while well-intended and productive in many ways, were missing a key component: deliberate and consistent integration of principles of equity.
I came to this realization a few years back when we began using a racial equity framework during extensive equity and inclusion training at Meyer. I’ve blogged before about how insightful and life-changing it was to learn and engage in this very personal and challenging work with my co-workers and trustees, particularly those who represent historically marginalized and disadvantaged populations and spoke openly and courageously about the barriers and challenges they encountered.
Quite simply, their honesty changed the way I view our world, the way I look at problem solving and, in turn, the way we at Meyer approach our work. It especially caused me to reflect on philanthropy and its challenges.
Philanthropy, borne out of wealth, is often at direct odds with equity. Historically rooted in notions of charity or generosity — not ill-intended, mind you — philanthropy can come across as decidedly noblesse oblige. Driven by the moral imperative that comes with power and privilege — an obligation to help others in need — and encouraged by significant tax incentives, a lot of money changed hands under this system. And many positive outcomes were achieved. But has this traditional style of philanthropy taken advantage of its full potential in a way that has created widespread and lasting impact? After two decades in the field, my answer is, to a great extent, “NO.”
In fact, traditional approaches to philanthropy can really miss the mark by not focusing on the underpinnings or causes of problems so often rooted in long-term bias, racism and other “isms” and oppression. In an effort to be “equal,” it sometimes ignored persistent disparities based on such characteristics as race, ethnicity, income, gender, sexual orientation and disability status. Often it acted without recognizing barriers imposed by historical disparities now embedded in our organizations, institutions and cultures. It reinforced marginalization by passing over people and communities that have historically been left out. And often it relied on predominantly white, highly educated, well-intended, yet often privileged, foundation leaders, staff and nonprofit executives to decide how best to address the challenges faced by “others.” Rarely were historically marginalized communities included in the development of philanthropy’s strategies and grantmaking.
Over the past 34 years, while Meyer has engaged in good and important work, I’ve come to realize that we — I, as CEO and the organization itself — were not completely immune from this historical culture and approach to philanthropy.
Our equity training, study and collective journey helped us to fully acknowledge the biases that shape our lives and the philanthropic sector we operate in. Before then, I had not completely understood how my privilege as a white guy from a family with the means to make my dreams come true continued to shape my view of our work and the world. Like many in the Pacific Northwest, I was progressive, thoughtful and “colorblind.” And I served no one by not recognizing how deeply historical bias and oppression are embedded in our institutions, our culture and our own subconscious, which naturally frames such things as who we live alongside, who we hire and who we socialize with. And those dominant culture biases and oppressions have shaped our decision making and strategy implementation.
I, and Meyer, are not alone on this journey in Oregon. Philanthropic organizations all over the state also put equity at the center of what they do or have begun to do so. A few examples:
MRG Foundation was borne out of a desire to have the deepest impact on the root causes of social inequity.
The Collins Foundation has been working intensely on equity for more than two years, and finalized in December plans to apply an equity lens to its grantmaking.
Oregon Community Foundation recently released a statement affirming its commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion.
Spirit Mountain Community Fund invests in, partners with and supports organizations that prioritize diversity and equity at the leadership level.
Social Venture Partners Portland uses an equity lens to ensure more racially equitable investments close significant gaps in opportunity and resources for children of color living in poverty.
This is the philanthropic environment into which Meyer Memorial Trust announced a complete overhaul of our strategy last year.
During 2015 we worked to realign our efforts to be more strategic and to have greater impact. Today marks the first day that applicants can begin to apply for $11 million in grants under three of our redesigned funding areas: Building Community, Healthy Environment and Housing Opportunities. We are constructing our fourth portfolio, Equitable Education, with funding opportunities to follow.
We will prioritize work with, and look to work alongside, nonprofit partners who share our interest in increasing equity and inclusion of Oregonians who experience disparities because of race, ethnicity, income, gender, sexual orientation, disability status and other historical oppressions.
We have gathered a stellar and diverse staff with content experience to help leverage our grant awards through a multitude of strategies, including taking a more active role to convene and leverage our influence, engaging in independent research/education of policymakers and advocacy, developing new and diverse leaders, and amplifying the voices and work of organizations, networks and coalitions committed to dismantling inequities and increasing equitable opportunities.
We are building in assessment of the progress and outcomes of our grants, programs and partnerships to help us understand both our achievements and our failures. Look for us to course correct when needed — and be fully transparent about what does and does not work and what we are learning.
Meyer is committed to being an engaged partner in this shared work of making Oregon a more equitable place. If you’re here to apply, this is where you go first.
When Meyer’s current five-year Affordable Housing Initiative launched in 2014, it felt audacious. We worked with the field to craft a refreshed framework of strategies, aimed towards innovation, systems change and the leveraging of resources.
With two dedicated and experienced program officers leading the initiative, we set out to change how Meyer advanced its affordable housing work. And the equity focus that is now central to Meyer’s work was, in several key ways, first tested through AHI’s work over the last two years.
Now it’s time to take stock of our progress to date. Kristina Smock Consulting recently completed an assessment of the first full year of AHI’s refreshed grantmaking. Evaluation highlights include:
The Preservation and Rural Housing strategies continue to achieve significant impact in preserving affordable housing across the state (p. 9-11 and p. 12-15, respectively);
The Sustaining Portfolios strategy, in partnership with technical assistance provider, Housing Development Center, produced a trove of data about the state of ten housing portfolios, including 157 properties (p. 16-18);
The Cost Efficiencies strategy convened an expert group to identify cost drivers and opportunities for reducing the cost of developing affordable housing (p. 19-22);
While Oregon wrestles with a historically low vacancy rate, the Private Market strategy helped strengthen understandings of HB-2639 Housing Choice Voucher reform law, illuminated the challenges faced by low-income and underserved populations, and strengthened relationships (p. 23-27); AHI also learned promising strategies that may flourish in a market with normal vacancy rates;
Grants made under the Advocacy strategy contributed to momentum around key local housing priorities, strengthened and diversified state-level engagement, supported 2015 legislative wins and set the stage for a robust 2016 legislative agenda (p. 31-36);
All of the Requests For Proposals were framed with an equity lens and three-quarters of the AHI grants were awarded to projects and organizations that fulfilled at least one of the four AHI equity objectives (p. 39-47);
Meyer’s intention around reaching all regions of the state was largely achieved, with a significant amount of grants outside the urban Willamette Valley (p. 43);
Goals to reach projects or organizations that served a majority people of color showed mixed success; of all the year one projects funded, 31% had projects that served a majority of people of color and 37% were for organizations that serve a majority of people of color (p. 44);
Meyer faces challenges in implementing data collection and gathering outcomes on equity indicators (p. 40-41) and we have ample room for improvement; and
Meyer continues to refine our AHI strategies, based on data and feedback from the field. We worked to add the Sustaining Portfolios strategy (p. 16) and modified the advocacy strategy after year one to be both wider in scope, with deeper investments over 1-2 years (p. 36).
The AHI Year One Evaluation is a sign Meyer remains committed to learning, in all forms. We built a convening structure into the AHI that facilitates sharing between grantees, field practitioners and Meyer. We continue to convene multi-sector workgroups on tough issues and will spread the findings of those groups. In the coming year, our AHI program officers will share blog posts about each of the strategies, highlighting both challenges and successes. And we know that dedicated time for learning and reflection, coupled with annual evaluations from an outside consultant, are critical to successful execution of the Initiative.
It’s clear that Meyer can’t do this work alone; we rely every day on housing developers, providers, advocates, community members and funders to carry out the vision that every Oregonian has a decent, safe and affordable place to call home.
We welcome your feedback on this Year One Evaluation of the AHI, and look forward to learning together in the coming years.
We continue to hear many good questions from our partners, such as:
How many funding opportunities will you have this year?
In 2016, there is one major funding call across the three active portfolios: Housing Opportunities, Healthy Environment and Building Community. Each has a slightly staggered deadline, so you will want to think through which portfolio area and goal is the best fit and apply by that deadline. Housing Opportunities, for example, has the first deadline for inquiry applications, on Monday, May 9th at 5pm. Deadlines for the other portfolios will follow.
I have an existing grant with Meyer. May I still apply?
Absolutely.
How much should I apply for?
That is a great question without a simple answer. We can say that Meyer is rarely the first funder or only funder of a project. We look for projects that leverage other resources.
Each portfolio gives ranges for the types of requests that it will be accepting. In general, we expect to make a few grants at the very high end of the range. Those projects will tend to be bigger, more complex, and may involve several organizations working collaboratively. We'll look at the grant request relative to the full budget for the project and the organization, and how much of an organization's budget Meyer would support if it has multiple grants.
No single factor determines the answer. So, consider these points and try to craft a request that makes sense within the ranges described in each portfolio. See more answers to questions we've heard on our FAQs page. And, finally, reach out to the portfolio staff or questions [at] mmt.org (questions[at]mmt[dot]org) if you want to talk through a grant request size.
Don't forget: the deadline for Housing Opportunities funding is 5 p.m., Monday, May 9th.
PLACES aims to advance funder efforts that empower communities of color and low-income communities to influence growth and development decision-making in their communities.
There’s lots of things to share about my time in Minneapolis, but I wanted to offer two takeaways from my visit.
The story of the Twin Cities is familiar
Not only does it evoke a host of teenage memories, but it sounds and looks a lot like Portland. The region is growing and its economy is strong. Like Portland, it has more nonprofits than most places, all working to improve the region. But, not everyone is doing well. Communities of color, low-income communities and communities that have historically experienced disparities are falling further behind while communities that have privilege are getting further ahead. Unemployment disparities are especially stark. Race, place and outcomes are highly correlated. We heard that “Minneapolis is fierce about affordable housing.” We know that Portland’s affordable housing conversation is also fierce … in that friendly, Portland way. Numerous presenters referenced a culture of “Minnesota nice” that hinders productive discourse about race. In Portland, we all know about “Portland nice.” And, it seems to cause a similar problem.
Work for equity and social change is complex
It requires collaboration and long-term commitment. It’s not the work of individuals acting in isolation or for the faint of heart.
We saw this in action during an all-day visit to the North Minneapolis Broadway Corridor — a place where community leaders demonstrate passionate commitment to their community, despite the deep disparities and challenges they face. During a panel discussion, community leaders described decades-long disinvestments in the area, while resources poured into neighboring white neighborhoods. The panel buzzed with what someone dubbed “positive tension.” The leaders didn’t agree on everything. They challenged each other’s assumptions and spoke difficult truths to each other — and to us.
DeVon Nolen, a force for positive change and Project/Market Manager of the West Broadway Business Area Coalition, led us on a tour of the corridor which included numerous nonprofits and small businesses working together. She shared creative solutions — some that haven’t yet taken hold and others that are working. For example, amidst a shower of bubbles (yes, bubbles) flowing from the rooftop of its building, Juxtaposition Arts wowed us with their youth empowerment and community development work. Along the way, we met business owners, long-time residents, and newcomers young and old, who shared impressions about the community or quizzed us about what we were doing there. Folks were clearly interested and engaged.
During lunch at Breaking Bread, an impromptu parade of several North Minneapolis leaders shared inspiring vignettes about their work. I particularly appreciated hearing from the director of Neighbors Organizing for Change who won a commitment from the state to reinvest some of the its surplus dollars into North Minneapolis. This is how real change happens.
The level of collaboration, organizing and action we saw was remarkable. Even though I grew up in the Twin Cities, I didn’t know the story of North Minneapolis or many of the other things I learned during the site visit.
Over the coming year, the PLACES program will offer me three more opportunities — in Hartford, Conn.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Jacksonville, Fla. — to hear how different funders are supporting and engaging with communities to advance equity. I look forward to sharing what I learn next time and how we can apply lessons from PLACES to our work for an equitable and flourishing Oregon.
We have covered more than a thousand miles visiting Oregon’s four corners to talk to folks about the goals of Meyer’s Healthy Environment portfolio and the new funding opportunities for 2016.
One of the more common questions we’ve been hearing in regards to the Healthy Environment portfolio has been: How much should I apply for?
That is a great question without a simple answer. We can say that Meyer is rarely the first funder or only funder of a project. We look for projects that leverage other resources and for projects that have the support and involvement of the community.
Each of Meyer’s portfolios offer guidelines for the 2016 funding opportunities and provide ranges for the types of requests that we’ll be accepting.
The Healthy Environment portfolio’s funding ranges can be found here. In general, we expect only to make a few grants at the high end of the range and expect that some of our grants will be one-year awards while others will be multi-year projects. We predict that awards granted at the top of the range will tend to be bigger, more complex and multi-year projects that may involve several organizations working collaboratively. In addition to project length and size, we will also look at the grant request relative to the full budget for the project and the organization, and how much of that organization’s budget Meyer would support if it has multiple grants.
No single factor determines the answer. So, consider these points and try to craft a request that makes sense within the ranges.
See more answers to questions we’ve heard on our FAQs page. And, finally, reach out to the portfolio staff or questions [at] mmt.org (questions[at]mmt[dot]org) if you want to talk through a grant request size.
It’s important to acknowledge that on this 189th day of 2016. To date this year, more than 500 people have been killed by police officers in this country. The exact figure could be 509. That’s how many such deaths The Washington Post has tracked in 2016. Or it might be 561, which is the total The Guardian reports killed at the hands of police in 2016.
America’s population totals around 322 million people — 62 percent are white and about 12 percent are black. Depending on which source you prefer, 123 or 136 of those killed this year were black, not the 67 people who would be killed if police killings were proportionally equal to the number of Americans who are black. That amounts to an African-American being killed by police every 33 hours. Since Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, roughly 400 black people have been killed by police, many of them unarmed, a number of them women.
I’m doing the math in order to try to make sense of the senseless. We can’t be naive about the disproportionate rates of police violence and killings in communities that are perpetually subjected to bias. Racism and racial profiling are real and do irreparable harm to black and brown people.
Last year, I came across a quote in a story on Huffington Post that really struck me: “Race is a trigger for police brutality.” The speaker was Jack Glaser, an associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at University of California-Berkeley. His point: Racial bias affects all officers, no matter their own skin color.
Within a 44-hour period between Tuesday morning and Wednesday night, two black men were shot and killed during encounters with police: Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old father of five from Baton Rouge, La., who was fatally shot while selling CDs outside a convenience store, and Philando Castile, a 32-year-old school cafeteria supervisor, who was mortally wounded during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minn.
Widely circulated cell phone videos captured Sterling’s death. Castile’s passenger live streamed the aftermath of his shooting on Facebook. As of Thursday morning, that video alone had been viewed more than 3.5 million times.
You can not unsee or avoid the pain and the anguish in those videos.
I belong to a movement of people who believe black lives matter. We want the long and growing list of mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers and children who die during encounters with police to end with the names Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. We want the lives of Black Americans to be valued. We want an end to the killing. As Jesse Williams, the actor who was recently awarded Black Entertainment Television’s Humanitarian Award, said: “What we’ve been doing is looking at the data and we know that police somehow manage to de-escalate, disarm and not kill white people everyday.” We want to see police de-escalate, disarm and not kill black people.
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton responded to Castile’s death with these words: “Would this have happened if the driver and the passengers had been white? I don’t think it would have. This kind of racism exists and it’s incumbent on all of us to vow that we’re going to do whatever we can to see that it doesn’t happen.”
Here’s something you can do if you’re exhausted by the litany of police deaths: Go see Hands Up. It is a series of monologues that lays bare African-American experiences of racial profiling by police. Hands Up is playing this Friday and Saturday at the Center for Self Enhancement Auditorium at SEI, 3920 N. Kerby Avenue in Portland. The Collins Foundation and Meyer Memorial Trust partnered to sponsor a nine-show revival of this important production by the August Wilson Red Door Project to give Oregonians more chances to stand in the shoes of our black friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers. It is an unforgettable experience.
The shows are free, the words are healing, the post-performance discussions are true and transformative. What could be more urgent and timely? Get your tickets here.
